Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."--Samuel Adams

Yes they have! I've been in a bad mood for several weeks, but this kind of news makes this old grouch want to take the wife out for supper and celebrate. There just might be a light at the end of the tunnel afterall!

Yes they have! I've been in a bad mood for several weeks, but this kind of news makes this old grouch want to take the wife out for supper and celebrate. There just might be a light at the end of the tunnel afterall!

I know what you mean! This is awesome!The argument in this injunction is really thought out

Now, if the NRA would file for a preliminary injunction in their case, the Chicago machine will be going bonkers. Lisa Madigan will be getting phone calls at all hours of the night. Anita Alverez might even come home from Hawaii. This is now becoming fun.

Who is David Livesay, and what is his connection to all of this? I saw his name on the last page. I went to school with his attorney and some of the attorney's siblings. Actually also went on a canoe & camping trip to Canada once with them.

I just read again the whole memorandum. If you all want a succinct but still detailed history of what has brought us to this place, please read the memorandum. It is quite an educational document, showing both the history of our pre-existing right to carry, as well as the history of carry restrictions and bans (which they beautifully reveal as having racist roots), and then tying it all together near the end by showing that Chicago's ban is more severe than the one struck down in Heller. Also beautifully done is the description of Mary Shepard's struggles and her need AND right to carry a gun for self-protection (which is the root of the memorandum for the injunction). Well done!

While the memo in the SAF suit was a little more elegant and emotionally moving, this memo supporting the NRA/ISRA's motion is probably more likely to influence a judge's thought process. Very well thought-out arguments with very thorough documentation. I loved that they used the CDC's research to support the Right-to-Carry!

"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside." -Moore v. Madigan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2012

So Id think if we win this one the FOID card would be all we need to carry until they scramble to pass some kind of carry law????

"The more criminal the leadership of a country becomes, the easier it is for the average person to find himself labeled a criminal by that same leadership." ME

"A government that does not trust it’s law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust.” James Madison.

“To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm… is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. - 1878"]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

if a Judge scrapped the UUW statute, they most likely woul dissue a stay to give the legislature a chance to act, that just tossing the hwole thing out the window with no ability for SAs to charge nar-do-wells with a violation, will not work.

It's just not practical. But the Oh **** factor to the SAs and miz Alverez would be a sight to see as anyone not a felon, or prohibted by class under state and federal law would have to have their case continued until the legislature sorted out what the end game was.

BTW, I hate to say it, but under Ezell, it looks that the FOID card is constitutional.

While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.

The FOID card is an unnecessary waste of resources in a state like Illinois that's broke...

"The more criminal the leadership of a country becomes, the easier it is for the average person to find himself labeled a criminal by that same leadership." ME

"A government that does not trust it’s law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust.” James Madison.

“To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm… is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. - 1878"]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

The FOID card is an unnecessary waste of resources in a state like Illinois that's broke...

Agreed but that does not make it unconstitutional. I am more offended by the waiting period. It seems more easily challenged than the FOID card, especially given the long delay before one can even get a FOID card. What useful purpose can possibly be served by making someone wait 3 extra days to acquire a handgun after the state makes you wait an indeterminate amount of time first that has historically been anywhere from 2 weeks to as long as 6 months?

bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

It's a good read. I think the state's reaction will be to dig the hole deeper, as Todd alluded to. This state has no shortage of stupidity at the highest levels.

After reading the filing, I think it's worth noting the various state's experiences... Most states are moving to a less restrictive form of carry, and none are trying to do away with their CCW laws. That alone speaks volumes to the effectiveness of CCW, and the overall "public interest" argument that Illinois will have to defend, if it wants to keep its CCW ban in place.

Most states are moving to a less restrictive form of carry, and none are trying to do away with their CCW laws. That alone speaks volumes to the effectiveness of CCW, and the overall "public interest" argument that Illinois will have to defend, if it wants to keep its CCW ban in place.

I don't know about the level of effectiveness, or what you mean by that, but there is a very solid bloc of voters that wants improvement in the carry laws (at least as they see it) and it is very hard for the politicians to go against that.

Given that the rivers of blood argument turned out to be a bust for them, the only legitimate argument the antis had against carry has long since gone away.

This is the US of A. Voters expect to be able to do as we please without government interference in our lives. We often want government to interfere in other people's lives, but not our own.

bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

Anyone know the date this will be called (heard in front of the judge)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~ Licensed to carry since 2008

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~ IL CCL 75 days from application to in hand!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~ I'm not the "bad guy" here, I just want to be able to defend myself and my family. Anywhere I should be permitted to carry a pencil (1st amendment), I should also be able to carry a firearm (2nd amendment) !!!!!!!!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Why do I carry a handgun? Well, look at it this way -- I keep a fire extinguisher in my house. I don't expect to have a fire; indeed, it's highly unlikely. But in the unlikely event of fire, not having the means to stop the fire could result in serious property loss or personal injury to myself and my family. Neither do I expect to be a victim of violent crime; indeed, it's highly unlikely. But in the unlikely event of a violent crime, not having the means to stop the criminal could lead to serious property loss or personal injury to myself and my family. It is simply a matter of common-sense prudence."
GarandFan, 2007
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Drawing any line only restricts law abiding people from crossing such a line. The "line" doesn't exist for criminals so we have to support the second amendment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good man with a gun"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

the court's electronic notice that the Defendants will have until 7/22/11 to file their Answer or other response. Please also note that the Court has stated no further extensions will be allowed absent extraordinary circumstances.

We are still attempting to find out if we have an expedited hearing date, etc., on the Motion for PI. We will keep you posted as soon as we find out.

While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.

if a Judge scrapped the UUW statute, they most likely woul dissue a stay to give the legislature a chance to act, that just tossing the hwole thing out the window with no ability for SAs to charge nar-do-wells with a violation, will not work.

It's just not practical. But the Oh **** factor to the SAs and miz Alverez would be a sight to see as anyone not a felon, or prohibted by class under state and federal law would have to have their case continued until the legislature sorted out what the end game was.

BTW, I hate to say it, but under Ezell, it looks that the FOID card is constitutional.

Of course us common folk realize that even if they strike it down and the legislature does not have time to act before us common folk start packin'; murder will still be murder, and all the other felonies will still be felonies, except the ones making the exercise of your fundamental right felonious.

the court's electronic notice that the Defendants will have until 7/22/11 to file their Answer or other response. Please also note that the Court has stated no further extensions will be allowed absent extraordinary circumstances.

We are still attempting to find out if we have an expedited hearing date, etc., on the Motion for PI. We will keep you posted as soon as we find out.

Looking at the long game, if Illinois drags its feet and UUW/AUUW is found to be unconstitutional, couldn't people convicted of UUW/AUUW have their convictions vacated or overturned? Assuming it was a law-abiding FOID holder who didn't have any other legal complications? That alone should motivate the ILGA to move swiftly before that a ruling on constitutionality is issued.

As for the City's concern about a “regulatory vacuum” between the issuance of the preliminary injunction and the promulgation of firing‐range zoning and safety reg‐ ulations, we note that it faced a similar dilemma after the Supreme Court decided McDonald. The sky did not fall.

It might be wishful thinking but to me it sounds like the 7th would be against a stay that continued irreparable harm.